<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (2) TMI 79 - CESTAT Ahmedabad</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220669</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim. The appellate judge found that the appellant had justified the refund claim, supported by chartered accountant certificates. The lower authorities failed to address the appeal points and consider the evidence. The case was remanded to the first appellate authority for reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles. The judgment refrained from expressing opinions on merits, ensuring a fair review of the refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:40:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 79 - CESTAT Ahmedabad</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220669</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim. The appellate judge found that the appellant had justified the refund claim, supported by chartered accountant certificates. The lower authorities failed to address the appeal points and consider the evidence. The case was remanded to the first appellate authority for reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles. The judgment refrained from expressing opinions on merits, ensuring a fair review of the refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>